Liversidge v Sir John Anderson: HL 3 Nov Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Abdi, Same v Same. In Rex v. Leman Street Police Station Inspector (1) it was held that art. an order made by Sir John Anderson as Home Secretary on May 26, , under reg. There was a 4/5 ruling AGAINST Liversidge in , it was ruled that no court can investigate whether the Secretary of State had reasonable.
|Published (Last):||12 October 2012|
|PDF File Size:||11.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.59 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Secondly, I shall express my opinion on the question which strictly speaking would not anderxon till the trial whether the order of the Secretary of State is in the circumstances sufficient prima facie proof that the Secretary of State has acted lawfully and that the detention of the appellant was liversodge is accordingly not illegal.
On livefsidge pleadings as they lliversidge, however, there was nothing to indicate that the appellant was attacking the validity of the order on the want of such reasonable grounds, and, if he were not, the existence or non-existence of those grounds was not an issue in the action. That, it seems to me, would be the travesty of a trial.
Jackson 3 it was held that in an action for false imprisonment on a criminal charge by a person not being a peace officer, mere belief of guilt is not sufficient justification, but facts must be shown on which the belief was grounded so that the court may judge whether or not the defendant had probable cause for making the arrest.
Liversage v Anderson  | Case Summary | Webstroke Law
Andegson it is valid, the action must clearly fail. It will naturally be in the most dangerous cases, where detention is most anedrson to the public safety, that the information before the Secretary of State is most likely to be of a confidential character, precluding its disclosure. I will deal with the suggested inconvenience to the minister or possible prejudice to the interests of the State later on.
In the Court of Appeal the question was approached from the point of view of onus, as was not unnatural in view of. He does not, however, state in what respect the document is invalid and on that pleading it would have been open to him to attack it upon several grounds, as, for example, that the regulation was ultra vires, or that Sir John did not honestly believe that the appellant was of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it was necessary liverzidge exercise control over him, or that, liiversidge Sir John did so believe, there did not exist in fact any reasonable grounds for such belief.
Liversage v Anderson 
The present case of Greene illustrates this. In that case the regulation undisputedly gave to a Secretary of State unrestricted power to detain a suspected person, though only on the recommendation of an advisory committee presided over by a judge.
These speeches embody statements of principle very relevant. I also note as indicative of the abnormal and temporary character of the legislation that it is expressly limited in duration.
The responsibility remains with the executive. The case, heard by the Federal Court inremains as binding precedent in Malaysia. Atkin’s interpretation has generally been preferred in subsequent years.
If extraordinary powers are here given, they are given because the emergency is extraordinary and are limited to the period of the emergency. State of Madraswhere the court held that the subjective test was to be applied.
In these cases the grounds for suspicion must be brought before the court, the onus is on the person who arrested to prove the reasonable grounds, and the issue whether the cause is reasonable or not is to be determined by the judge.
Can it be supposed, he said, that it was intended that the accumulated experience, instinct and knowledge of the minister in coming to a decision on this matter could be replaced by a judgment of a court of law? This is made plainer by the express and unconditional power given by 14A 3.
Liverxidge in general is a very salutary rule, but andedson are dealing here with an Act passed and regulations made under it in times of a great national emergency, and in view of this circumstance and of the objects which that Act and those regulations so plainly had in view, the courts should, c my opinion, prefer that construction which is the least likely to imperil the safety of this country. There was nothing in the former corresponding to paras. Therefore, in an action by a person detained against the Secretary of State for damages for false imprisonment the court cannot compel the defendant to give particulars of the grounds on which he had reasonable cause to believe the plaintiff to be a person of hostile associations or that by reason of such hostile associations it was necessary to exercise control over the anserson.
It is beyond dispute that he can decline to disclose the information on which he has acted on the ground that to do so would be contrary to the public interest, and that this privilege of the Crown cannot be disputed.
These provisions seem to me to be a substitute for a trial in court of the issues, no doubt inadequate in one sense, but as effective as the circumstances admit. If the plaintiff adduces evidence which goes to show the invalidity of the order, that might happen. Here is indeed an impasse. It was a question of the extent of the authority given by the ordinance. Secretary of State for Home Affairs 1 are undoubtedly of considerable force, but to accede to them would, or might in certain cases, lead to a result that neither Parliament nor the framers of the regulation could by any possibility have intended.
Morrison an injunction restraining him from continuing the imprisonment of the appellant. It is not an abstract or absolute freedom.
For it is obvious that at the trial the appellant would not be content with merely proving that he was detained in prison. Wright 1 ; that he must show the cause of suspicion so that the court may judge of the reasonableness: The first is that Orders in Council making regulations pursuant aneerson an Act of Parliament do not in general receive the same attention and scrutiny as andderson, and it is important to remember that, though they may be annulled, they cannot be amended in either House see s.
The respondents sought andersoj find support in the decision in Rex v. A minister given only a limited authority cannot make for himself a valid return by merely saying I acted as though I had authority.